Jesus has broken the Sabbath

[Yekcidmij]

Hmmm, I hate the word but. But there is this, Take note that Moses' Testimony directly says God Wrote. The contrast Between the first person singular I in verse 3 and the third person singular He in verse 4 is clear.

Deut 10:3 And I made an ark of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.
Deut 10:4 And He wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.


The text in 34 is ambiguous. It can be taken either way. Deut 10 cannot.

However 34:27 literally says in the Hebrew and Greek, "write to thou these words" and "write to thyself these sayings" respectively.

Which implies Moses wrote his own copy.

Regardless Deut 10 is crystal clear

I don't think it's ambiguous at all. In 27, it's clear that God tells Moses to write. And in vs 28, it's equally clear that the 3rd person masc sing pronoun's antecedent is Moses in all three verbs:

- "he" (ie, Moses) is the one that "was there with Yahwweh." It's not saying "he" (ie Yahweh) is on the mountain with Yahweh.
- "he" (ie, Moses) is the one that "neither ate bread nor drank water." It's not saying Yahweh was refraining from eating or drinking bread.
- "he (ie, still Moses) is the one that "wrote."

The antecedent of the 3rd masc. sing. never changes in this verse; it's the same all three times. It's Moses. The one that thinks the antecedent of the pronoun in verb for "he wrote" (יִּכְתֹּ֣ב) has changed, has to explain why this shift between antecedents occurred and why it's occured in light of Moses just being told to write. The only reason ambiguity or confusion arises is because one arbitrarily shifts antecedents.

I think some people have trouble with, and make this arbitrary shift, in vs 28 is because vs 1 says God will write, where in 27-28 Moses is commanded to write and Moses is the one that writes. But there is no reason for there to be a discrepancy b/t vs 1 and 27-28. I was really only discussing this b/c another poster was trying to use this perceived discrepancy in their argument. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other if Moses was writing or God was writing, and as I indicated, I don't think there's even really an issue at all between Ex 34:1 and Ex 34:27-28.

Some people, like a previous poster on this thread, may try to use this supposed discrepancy in order to say that the "ten commandments" mentioned in Ex 34:28 aren't the same list that was just commanded in Ex 34:11-26, and that what vs 28 is really talking about is the list in Ex 20 or Deut 4:13, 5:1-21, hence the change in antecedents. Along with this arbitrary shift is the assertion that what Moses is commanded to write in 34:27 is what's found ni 34:11-26.

So the opposition argument runs like this: in Ex 34:1 God says he will write. Then God gives a list of commands in Ex 34:11-26. In Ex 34:27 Moses is told to to write, and what he writes in what God just told him in Ex 34:11-26. Then, in Ex 34 28, though in two verbs the antecedent for the pronoun in Moses, the antecedent shifts in the third verb because God writes the "ten commandments" as we "know" from Deut 4:13 and Deut 5.

The reason this doesn't work is because there are clear verbal links between Ex 34:1, 10 and Ex 34:27-28, which also indicates that the "ten commandments" in Ex 34:28 is the list that was just commanded in Ex 34:11-26. These verbal links form a clear, literary unit with this passage and can't be treated dismissively.

For what it's worth, it's also not like I'm the first person to observe this. This issue is discussed in most critical commentaries. Also discussed more concisely here: What Did God Write on the Tablets of Stone? - TheTorah.com

If one is Torah observant, and observes all of Torah, then I think this discussion may be interesting, but is a kind of theological side-bar. Interesting, but not crucial to anything. But for one that insists that we must observe the "ten commandments" only (and no others), this presents an issue.

 

[HIM]

I don't think it's ambiguous at all. In 27, it's clear that God tells Moses to write. And in vs 28, it's equally clear that the 3rd person masc sing pronoun's antecedent is Moses in all three verbs:

- "he" (ie, Moses) is the one that "was there with Yahwweh." It's not saying "he" (ie Yahweh) is on the mountain with Yahweh.
- "he" (ie, Moses) is the one that "neither ate bread nor drank water." It's not saying Yahweh was refraining from eating or drinking bread.
- "he (ie, still Moses) is the one that "wrote."

The antecedent of the 3rd masc. sing. never changes in this verse; it's the same all three times. It's Moses. The one that thinks the antecedent of the pronoun in verb for "he wrote" (יִּכְתֹּ֣ב) has changed, has to explain why this shift between antecedents occurred and why it's occured in light of Moses just being told to write. The only reason ambiguity or confusion arises is because one arbitrarily shifts antecedents.

I know, but we still have verse 1 where the Lord states He will write what He had on the first. That is a powerful witness that goes hand in hand with the fact that Moses' Testimony directly says God Wrote the Ten on the tablets in Deut 10. The contrast Between the first person singular I in verse 3 and the third person singular He in verse 4 is clear.

Deut 10:3 And I made an ark of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.
Deut 10:4 And He wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.

I think some people have trouble with, and make this arbitrary shift, in vs 28 is because vs 1 says God will write, where in 27-28 Moses is commanded to write and Moses is the one that writes.

The text is ambiguous. It can be taken either way due to context shown above in respect to verse 1 and what is shared here below. And let's not forget Moses testimony in Deut 10 as we move forward.

As was shown in the post you responded to 34:27 literally says in the Hebrew and Greek, "write to thou these words" and "write to thyself these sayings" respectively.

Which implies Moses wrote his own copy.

So one asks, Moses wrote his own copy of what? You assume or think it is the Ten. But the word "these" in the clause "write to thou these Words" is not implying that. It is implying what was said previously stated not what is about to be said. Couple that with the fact that covenant is lacking the definite article in verse 27. And that the covenant in verse 27 is the covenant that is made after these words that were just spoken that Moses is instructed to write. Which reverts back to verse 10.

Verse 28’s covenant is separate from 27 and the use of the definite article in relation to the covenant in verse 28 shows us that the covenant in it is a different covenant than in verse 27 in which Moses was told to write where the definite article is lacking as in verse 10.

But with all that stated you are right when you say in respect to verse 28, "The antecedent of the 3rd masc. sing. never changes in this verse; it's the same all three times." Hence why there is ambiguity unless all is considered.

For what it's worth, it's also not like I'm the first person to observe this. This issue is discussed in most critical commentaries. Also discussed more concisely here: What Did God Write on the Tablets of Stone? - TheTorah.com

Thanks

If one is Torah observant, and observes all of Torah, then I think this discussion may be interesting, but is a kind of theological side-bar. Interesting, but not crucial to anything. But for one that insists that we must observe the "ten commandments" only (and no others), this presents an issue.

There is bias everywhere on all sides. Somewhat blinding for most sadly.
Prayerfully God through His Christ will get us through

 

[FredVB]

How do any say that Jesus broke the Sabbath, as Jesus never spoke against the law from God, though against traditions put in place of them, when breaking Sabbath would be sin, and that accusation will mean Jesus sinned? They should not be permitted to say that among Christian believers.

 

[Dead Eye]

How do any say that Jesus broke the Sabbath, as Jesus never spoke against the law from God, though against traditions put in place of them, when breaking Sabbath would be sin, and that accusation will mean Jesus sinned? They should not be permitted to say that among Christian believers.

Jesus ended the law Col 2:14 but still encourages the two commandments, Matt 22:37-40

 

[Semper-Fi]

Jesus ended the law Col 2:14 but still encourages the two commandments, Matt 22:37-40

the law could not, was not nailed to the cross,
but what was the handwriting of requirements?

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,

which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way,
having nailed it to the cross".
-

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to
the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Revelation 22:14).

Since the bible it is only "those who do His commandments...{who} have the right
to enter...the city" , the ten commandments could not be "contrary to us."

Revelation specifically shows that those who break one of at least four of
the ten commandments will be outside God's city (Revelation 22:15).

The ten commandments were not "nailed to the cross," what was?
Look again at what the Bible actually says (two translations):

14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,
which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way,
having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14, NKJV)

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us,
which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way,
having nailed it to the cross.. (Colossians 2:14, NASB)

The handwriting of requirements (often also called the hand-writing of ordinances)
or certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the stake, which some call a cross

Which requirements were wiped out?
the expression "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin)
is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay

--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty. It is only through
the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out
("the handwriting of requirements").

But only the penalty, not the law!
Even some Protestant commentators realize this is so. Notice what
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:

"Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us
a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14),
which may be understood,

1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is
the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one
who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary
to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin.

This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,
Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition,
Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

look at the Greek term exaleipho translated as "wiped out" in Colossians 2:14:

NT:1813
exaleipho (ex-al-i'-fo); from NT:1537 and NT:218; to smear out, i.e. obliterate (erase tears,
figuratively, pardon sin) (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance
with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International)

In other words, exaleipho has to do with wiping out sin. This is also confirmed in Acts 3:19
where Peter also uses the term exaleipho, which is translated as "blotted out" below:

19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

Hence, it is sin and the related penalties that are to be blotted or wiped out.
And the penalties could vary from "being unclean to the evening" (Leviticus 11:24-28)
to making an offering (Leviticus 5:5-6) to being "cut off from his people" (Leviticus 7:27)
to the death penalty (Exodus 31:14).

This is also confirmed elsewhere in the New Testament:

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us
(Galatians 3:13). The curse of the law is related to the penalty. And Jesus paid it.

But what about the law of God? Was the law of God to be wiped out? No:

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17)


While some erroneously think that Jesus, for example, did away with the Ten Command-
ments by how He led His life, that most certainly was not the view of the early Christians
who continued to keep them[Paul included]

Furthermore, remember that the Bible clearly teaches that sin is lawlessness:

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know
that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. (I John 3:4-5).

Notice that Paul wrote:

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!
How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Romans 6:1-2).

Thus the New Testament makes clear that the law of God continues,
thus it was not nailed to the cross or somehow wiped out.

The Bible, however, also shows that the requirements of the Levitical priesthood
(Hebrews 9:1,6-10) sometimes called the law, which were part of the penalty of sin,
were blotted out.

And why?

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
once for all" (Hebrews 10:4,10).

Jesus' one sacrifice was and is sufficient--we do not have to sacrifice animals any more!

Another requirement (which is related) would be the death penalty of sin,
as "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"
(Romans 6:23) or other specific ceremonial penalties associated with the Old Testament
statutes (such as making a sin offering, being put outside the camp, or washing).

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Jesus ended the law Col 2:14 but still encourages the two commandments, Matt 22:37-40

He didn't "end" the Law...murder is still a sin. "you shall" is not "encouragement"...

 

[FredVB]

Breaking Sabbath would be contrary to commandments. Where is Jesus shown to speak against commandments? It is not the law being ended, there was the end to penalties against us, only in Christ, they are still there for anyone else. If Jesus Christ went contrary to commandments he would not be sinless. Even the penalties against us was only ended by Jesus bearing it all going to the crucifixion and on the cross. They were not ended to anyone before that. What Jesus disagreed with while obedient to commandments were traditions put in place of that, those who promoted traditions being continued called those contrary to them unclean, and Jesus addressed that.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus ended the law Col 2:14 but still encourages the two commandments, Matt 22:37-40

The two commandments in Matt 22 are from the Law of Moses

Deut 6:5 - Love God with all your heart
Lev 19:18 - Love your neighbor as yourself

In Matt 22 - Jesus said "all the Law AND the prophets" (all of scripture) are based on that solid bedrock foundation

That is very different from "All scripture is deleted by Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18"

 

[BobRyan]

the law could not, was not nailed to the cross,
but what was the handwriting of requirements?

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,

amen.

Col 2 -- NASB

13 And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Jesus paid our debt on the cross. IT is our debt that He nailed to the cross - not "His Word" -- not "the Law of God" where we find
"Do not take God's name in vain"
"do not worship false Gods"
"Honor parents" Ex 20:12
etc.

Christ said 'The Sabbath was made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27 - not "Against mankind"

1 John 5:4 "This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING God's Commandments"
Rev 14:12 "saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
(should probably read "because of their faith in Jesus" - in English)

Where Eph 6:1-2 "the first commandment with a promise" is Ex 20:12 "honor your father and mother"

 

[Jerry N.]

Seems to me that the Law is eternal.

 

[BobRyan]

Seems to me that the Law is eternal.

kind of like God - the Author of it.

 

[FredVB]

God is eternal and never wrong. What God said for how it should be would not be negated or changed. There are concessions for hardened hearts, but that is not the same as what God said before that would not be negated or changed.

 

[FredVB]

If we used biblical principles, such as this, we would not miss as much from the Bible as we do when we are sure our interpretations of the meanings of passages are the right ones, when we hear any other view.

 

[Dan Perez]

John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

I am aware that most commentators are of the opinion that Jesus did not break the Sabbath and that the Jews had falsely accused him, but if you look at it more closely, the Jews were actually right in their accusation that Jesus broke the Sabbath.

Reason:
The law says you shall not bear any burden on the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-22). That this commandment is to be understood in exactly this way can be seen from the fact that God had a man stoned to death for carrying only wood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). Jesus broke this commandment by commanding the healed man to carry his bed (John 5:10-11). The Jews were right in their accusation in this regard. And the clear proof that Jesus broke the Sabbath lies in the fact that John the author of the Gospel agrees with this in verse 18. If Jesus had not broken the Sabbath, he would not have expressed himself in this way but would have made it clear that the Jews were lying.And they

The reason why Jesus broke the ceremonial commandments like the Sabbath was not because he was a sinner for he is sinless but because he wanted to show that these commandments are to be understood spiritually. The Sabbath was never to be the seventh day of the week. The Sabbath was Jesus Christ, who is the true rest in which we should enter, as Paul said. Paul also said that God never wanted animal sacrifices, but that the true sacrifice is Jesus. The Old Testament is only a shadow, the New Testament is the fulfilment and the reality.

And the Jews were WRONG as Matt 12:8 says , FOR // GAR , is a conjuction .

THE // HO , is a DEFINITE ARTICILE , in the Nominative case , in the Singular

SON // HUIOS , also in the Nominative Case , also in the singular

OF MAN // ANTHROPOS , is a GENITIVE CASE , in the Singular

IS // ESTI , Present tense , INDICATIVE CASE , mean you better believe it

LORD // KYNOS , in the NOMINATIVE CASE , in the Singular

EVEN // KAI , is a CONJUNCTION

OF THE // HO a DEFINITE ARTICLE ,GENITIVE CASE , in the SIGNULAR , in the NEUTER , meaning Male and Female

SABBATHH // SABBATON

Jesus never broke the SABBATH , because HE IS THE LORD of the SABBATH !!

By the way LORD // KURIOS means MASTER !!

dan p

 

[Dan Perez]

John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

I am aware that most commentators are of the opinion that Jesus did not break the Sabbath and that the Jews had falsely accused him, but if you look at it more closely, the Jews were actually right in their accusation that Jesus broke the Sabbath.

Reason:
The law says you shall not bear any burden on the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17:21-22). That this commandment is to be understood in exactly this way can be seen from the fact that God had a man stoned to death for carrying only wood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). Jesus broke this commandment by commanding the healed man to carry his bed (John 5:10-11). The Jews were right in their accusation in this regard. And the clear proof that Jesus broke the Sabbath lies in the fact that John the author of the Gospel agrees with this in verse 18. If Jesus had not broken the Sabbath, he would not have expressed himself in this way but would have made it clear that the Jews were lying.And they

The reason why Jesus broke the ceremonial commandments like the Sabbath was not because he was a sinner for he is sinless but because he wanted to show that these commandments are to be understood spiritually. The Sabbath was never toction be the seventh day of the week. The Sabbath was Jesus Christ, who is the true rest in which we should enter, as Paul said. Paul also said that God never wanted animal sacrifices, but that the true sacrifice is Jesus. The Old Testament is only a shadow, the New Testament is the fulfilment and the reality.

And the Jews were WRONG as Matt 12:8 says , FOR // GAR , is a conjunction

THE // HO , is a DEFINITE ARTICILE , in the Nominative case , in the Singular

SON // HUIOS , also in the Nominative Case , also in the singular

OF MAN // ANTHROPOS , in th GENOTIVE CASE , in the Singular

IS // ESTI , Present tense , INDICATIVE CASE , means you better it what is written .

is LORD // KURIOS , means he is MASTER of the SABBATH .

dan p

 

[FredVB]

Jesus did not break any of the law with any of the commandments. He necessarily fulfilled them. That does not mean they are finished, but they were fully obeyed. The incarnation from God was fully human and obeyed it. So with bearing the consequence for others not doing this, the others are freed from consequence while still living to be conformed to God's will for us.

 

[FredVB]

To obey God's will for us with our observance of it is quite important. What is it? I will say it is what is revealed earliest, and things revealed later differing with it is accommodation or compromise for us with our sinful nature and stubborn ways, that God will not continue to hold against us. But for spiritual growth we should move beyond that actually looking for God's will that we would do what is according to that.

 

[FredVB]

Works of repentance are possible with the fruit of the Spirit that should grow abundantly among believers, with their growth. These are not contrary to commandments from God. It is sad to see there are some who still do speak against the commandments from God.

 

[FredVB]

I see that many among us will trust in all sorts of things rather than even trusting God, to observe what God has been revealing to us. We would be led to despair without hope we might have with God's power with God caring and working for us.